***Read my whole post and see if maybe, just MAAYYBEE you can figure out what I was saying.***
Sorry, that statement just seemed a little strange. I get what you mean though.
***Horse crap. It’s the same thing, no matter how you want to candy coat it. If a terrorist demands I leave a country and after I decide to up and leave then I have surrendered regardless of what I claim I’m doing it for.***
Terrorists will always demand we leave and eventually we’re going to leave (when we complete whatever our objective is). It certainly won’t be surrender then. I believe there is a difference between surrender and pulling out. When an army pulls out of a country because it is losing (and we’re certainly not “losing” Iraq), it isn’t surrendering. Hitler didn’t surrender when he couldn’t take Stalingrad, but he did began to pull back because he couldn’t sustain the losses and the Russians began applying too much pressure.
Obviously that’s not the case for us so any pulling out we do is on our terms. I’m not arguing pulling out immediately. And it’s not as if these insurgencies are any real threat to our military power. No matter what they claim, we did, are, and can kick the crap out of them anytime. Most Iraqis aren’t stupid, and they are acquiring a competent military. Like I said, I’m not in favor of pulling out immediately. We invaded their country, promised to rebuild it, and we owe it to them to finish that.
My issue is with the fact that we think it’s our job to do nation-build all the time. We should have finished Afghanistan before we even considered Iraq. I believe in the Just War theory and Taliban clearly prevented us from catching Osama and clearly helped him. I won’t get into the details, but I believe we should have gone in full force and accomplished our goal.
Today we have loosely defined goals and by and large I think we have won. It will require more time, but not much more in my estimation.